The Math and Science Partnership program aims to improve mathematics and science education in participating districts. In order to achieve this goal, the MSP program has identified the following foci (2003 MSP solicitation):
- Providing students with access to challenging and advanced mathematics/science courses;
- Enhancing the quality, quantity, and diversity of the K–12 mathematics/science teacher workforce; and
- Developing evidence-based outcomes that contribute to our understanding of how students effectively learn mathematics/science.
MSPs vary widely in the interventions they use in these areas of focus in mathematics/science education. At the same time, each MSP draws on the knowledge and skills of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty to improve K–12 mathematics/science education. The involvement of STEM faculty has been emphasized throughout the MSP solicitations (2003-2009).
As we all know, STEM faculty engagement is a hallmark of the MSP program. The premise is that STEM faculty hold the knowledge that the teachers need, and if they are successfully involved in this process, the chain of professional knowledge will be expressed and have a result in increased student achievement.
MSPs may involve STEM disciplinary faculty in the design of professional development programs or courses intended to deepen teacher content knowledge. STEM disciplinary faculty roles in the design stage of MSPs have included:
- Identifying learning goals for teachers;
- Developing the scope and sequence of professional development programs/courses;
- Selecting/adapting/designing learning experiences for teachers;
- Developing instruments to assess teacher content knowledge;
- Preparing professional development/course providers; and
- Providing input on redesign of professional development programs/courses.
Many MSPs also include STEM disciplinary faculty in implementing content-deepening experiences for K–12 teachers, involving faculty in:
- Facilitating teacher investigations/discussions focused on mathematics/science content;
- Facilitating investigations/discussions focused on mathematics/science pedagogical content knowledge (e.g., considering student thinking);
- Providing lectures/explanations focused on mathematics/science content;
- Serving as a content resource to address teachers’ questions;
- Monitoring teacher understanding of the content; and
- Serving as an on-demand content resource for teachers.
What is the impact of STEM disciplinary faculty involvement in mathematics/science education? The MSP Knowledge Management and Dissemination project conducted a targeted search of the empirical literature on deepening teacher content knowledge, surfacing multiple approaches for deepening teachers’ mathematics/science content knowledge. Some studies involved STEM disciplinary faculty in the design and/or implementation of the intervention. Of the studies yielded from the systematic search, nine research studies investigated professional development programs that involved STEM disciplinary faculty in deepening teacher content knowledge. One of the 9 studied teachers’ mathematics and science content knowledge; three studied teachers’ mathematics content knowledge; and five studied teachers’ science content knowledge. (See Tables 1-2.) STEM disciplinary faculty in these programs had a role in designing and/or implementing the teacher content knowledge intervention. (See Table 3.)
Findings from Research
Each of the studies of professional learning experiences to deepen teacher mathematics/science knowledge that included STEM disciplinary faculty yielded positive results on participating teachers’ content knowledge. Although none of these studies investigated the unique contribution of the involvement of STEM disciplinary faculty, consistent positive results across programs support claims regarding its effectiveness in deepening teachers’ mathematics/science content knowledge.
(Click on the name of each study to read a description of how the intervention involved STEM disciplinary faculty in deepening teachers’ science content knowledge.)
Research Studies of Interventions that Involved STEM Disciplinary Faculty in Deepening Teachers’ Mathematics Content Knowledge
Integrated Science and Mathematics Professional Development Programs (Basista & Mathews, 2002)
Middle-Grade Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge and Its Relationship to Instruction (Sowder et al., 1998)
Increased Knowledge in Geometry and Instructional Practice (Swafford et al., 1997)
The Impact on Instructional Practice of a Teacher Change Model (Swafford et al., 1999)
Research Studies of Interventions that Involved STEM Disciplinary Faculty in Deepening Teachers’ Science Content Knowledge
Coming soon
Role of STEM Disciplinary Faculty in Deepening Teachers’ Mathematics/Science Content Knowledge
Coming soon
Mathematics Studies
The four mathematics studies were concentrated in the middle grades, with teacher participants ranging from grade 4 to grade 10. Across the studies, topics in number and operations, algebra, geometry, measurement, and data/probability/statistics were addressed. The experiences for teachers in these four studies included two structured as four-week summer institutes (Basista & Mathews, 2002), one of which also provided six half-day follow-up sessions during the ensuing academic year (Swafford et al., 1997; Swafford et al., 1999). One was structured as week-long courses, with teachers choosing among five science and five mathematics courses (Geer, 2001). The other study involved teachers in monthly meetings with university faculty over two academic years, as well as visits by university faculty to the teachers’ classrooms (Sowder et al., 1998).
In addition to the involvement of STEM disciplinary faculty in facilitation roles, some other commonalities are evident among these four experiences. First, all four programs included strategies to help teachers connect the mathematics content they were learning to their classroom teaching. Second, all four engaged teachers in a fairly lengthy and intensive program focused on mathematics content. Third, all four experiences engaged teachers with challenging mathematics (i.e., concepts beyond or in much greater depth than the teachers would be expected to teach). Fourth, all four programs used content-based investigations targeting specific mathematics concepts as a way to deepen teachers’ mathematics content knowledge. Again, none of these features was studied systematically, but their common occurrence in these experiences suggests some potential importance with respect to the goal of deepening teachers’ content knowledge, and the involvement of STEM faculty in those endeavors.
Teachers participated in each of these experiences on a voluntary basis, so generalizability of the findings from these studies must be considered in this light. The populations that the participating teachers represent are limited to those willing and able to commit to such extensive interventions.
Although all of these studies used either a pre-post design to measure changes in teachers’ content knowledge or traced changes over time, none of the studies used comparison groups of teachers who did not participate in the professional development programs. It is possible that participating teachers might perform better on a measure of content knowledge on a post-test simply because they had completed it previously, in one case (Basista & Mathews, 2002) only a few weeks before. The use of multiple measures addresses this concern to some extent, as in the Swafford and colleagues (1997, 1999) study in which the participating teachers performed better in three different content areas, and on three separate measures of knowledge of geometry, following treatment. And in the Sowder and colleagues’ (1998) study both written instruments and interviews with teachers were used to triangulate findings. Only one (Swafford et al. 1997; Swafford et al., 1999) of the four studies used any externally-developed measures of teacher content knowledge. Otherwise, little information was provided on how the measures used in the four studies were developed and validated for the purpose of assessing growth in teachers’ content knowledge.
Additional limitations were noted regarding some of these studies. Studies of three interventions had potential problems with investigator bias, as the researchers were responsible for designing and/or implementing at least some of the interventions (Basista, 2002; Sowder, et al.1998; Swafford, et al., 1997; Swafford, et al., 1999).
Science Studies
Teacher participants in the six studies investigating teachers’ science content knowledge gains ranged from grades K through 12. Topics in earth, life, and physical science were addressed, with 3 of the 6 studies focusing on life science (Irving, Dickson, & Keyser, 1999; Odom, 2001; Radford, 1998). Two of the studies focused on teachers’ understanding of the nature of science rather than on a disciplinary content area (Lord and Peard, 1995; Odom, 2001).
The experiences for teachers in the six studies varied in intensity and duration. One study focused on courses that met over the course of a year (Irving, Dickson, and Keyser, 1999), while others concentrated on three- to four-week summer institutes (Basista & Mathews, 2002; Jones, 1997; Lord and Peard, 1995), with two also providing academic year follow up (Basista & Mathews, 2002; Jones, 1997). Two studies involved teachers working with scientists on research projects (Odom, 2001; Radford, 1998).
In terms of generalizability of the findings, it is important to note that teachers participated in each of these experiences on a voluntary basis; the population that these teachers represent is those willing and able to commit to extensive interventions. The small sample size of several studies also raises questions about how possible it is to generalize the results (Basista & Mathews, 2002; Lord and Peard, 1995; Odom, 2001; Radford, 1998).
Although all of these studies used either a pre-post design to measure changes in teachers’ content knowledge or traced changes over time, only one of the studies used comparison groups of teachers who did not participate in the professional development programs (Radford, 1998). It is possible that participating teachers might perform better on a measure of content knowledge on a post-test simply because they had completed it previously. One study (Jones, 1997) implied that different questions were used for the pre- and post-tests, but it was not clear whether the tests were equivalently difficult. Several of the studies used measures of teacher content knowledge that were either unidentified or not well described, and many authors did not discuss evidence of reliability and validity of their measures.
Additional limitations were noted regarding some of these studies with regards to potential biases. In two of the studies, the researchers designed or implemented the intervention, raising the potential of investigator bias (Basista & Mathews, 2002; Radford, 1998). In one study (Lord and Peard, 1995) there is a possible investigator bias because the participants met with education faculty to determine ways to implement their understanding in the classroom. There are also questions of potential bias in one study (Irving et al., 1999) for which results for only some of the participating teachers were reported.
For the research on why the involvement of STEM disciplinary faculty matters bibliography
- for mathematics, click here.
- for science, click here.
The nine studies described above were part of a more inclusive review of research on experiences intended to deepen teachers’ mathematics and/or science content knowledge. For more information, you are invited to read summaries of research on experiences intended to